Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Impasse
Message-ID: <1642@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Sep-85 13:13:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1642
Posted: Wed Sep  4 13:13:36 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Sep-85 20:24:42 EDT
References: <273@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 45

> 	The fact that you have not been able to prove determinism beyond
> all reasonable doubt, added to the fact that you prefer an inflexible
> vocabulary, are proof enough to me that this argument will not be resolved
> to *YOUR* satisfaction. Here exists the arbitrary choice, and I don't think
> the world will destroy itself over either definition. [WILLIAMS]

The fact that I was never seeking to "prove determinism beyond all reasonable
doubt" notwithstanding, the placement of the burden of proof is crucial
here.  In certain systems, the status quo simply says "It's on you because
we are the statusquo, even after holes have been shown in the status quo.
That doesn't change where the burden of proof really belongs.

> 	The choice I have made is to recognize that words invariably
> connect with ideals which do not exist in reality, and that the best one can
> hope for is a close fit within some acceptable margin. It is true that
> free will can not exist within die hard determinism, but I choose not to
> use this word in a scientific context.

"Words invariably connect" with concepts and ideals, and we cannot willy nilly
unilaterally change which concepts/ideals they are supposed to connect with.
I accept the first part of your last sentence above, but to accept the latter
(which really means, despite the abuse of the term "scientific", that you
choose not to use a rigorous definition---why not?  does doing this IMPROVE
communication?) would be a sham.

> If science were able to explain everything, there would be no need for
> such things as philosophy.

Perhaps it is precisely because philosophers choose to be presumptive rather
than rigorous that you get 100 philosophers in a room and 200 opinions,
all antithetical to each other.  Perhaps.

> 	Remember, Rich, that the essence of science is not analysis,
> but observation. It would be rather simple for me to prove that objective
> analysis doesn't exist, if I were to define the concept by the ideal.

One without the other doesn't yield much.  Analysis without observation is
pure theory, not necessarily a notion related to the real world (which is
not in and of itself bad).  Observation without analysis yields a pile of
observations (and observation without rigor in exmaination may yield
the influence of subjective notions we can do without in analyzing the
real world).  I would say science is really a combination of both.
-- 
"iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!"
	Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr